Mosley v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
Mosley v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2023–2025 · 2 courts · …mistrial is a drastic remedy only to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances where there is no other way to remove the prejudice to the defendant. at p. 873 ⚠ not in text
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christopher L. Russell, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. (moctapp, 2025-09-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher L. Russell, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Mistrial is a drastic remedy only to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances where there is no other way to remove the prejudice to the defendant.” Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 873 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) MARTIN PRIEST, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Counsel will not be deemed ineffective for reasonable choices of trial strategy no matter how ill-fated they may appear in hindsight.” Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Mo. App. 2015).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of: A.K., a/k/a A.D.K. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Strickland Standard—Failure to Request a Mistrial “Mistrial is a drastic remedy only to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances where there is no other way to remove the prejudice to the defendant.” Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 873 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Troy Callahan v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Moreover, while those cases demonstrate a lack of error in the convictions and sentences, in post-conviction matters we emphasize, too, that “[c]ounsel will not be deemed ineffective for reasonable choices of trial strategy, no matter how ill-fated they may appear in hindsight.” Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cannon v. Payne
E.D. Mo. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Mistrial is a drastic remedy only to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances where there is no other way to remove the prejudice to the defendant.” Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 873 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (quoting Jones v. State, 389 S.W.3d 253, 259 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Boston v. Ramey
E.D. Mo. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Doc. [11-2] at 1-18; Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 874 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dyanthany Y. Proudie v. State of Missouri (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
In assessing trial counsel’s performance, “[trial] [c]ounsel will not be deemed ineffective for reasonable choices of trial strategy no matter how ill-fated they may appear in hindsight.” Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 871 (Mo.App.E.D. 2015).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) EDDIE A. SALAZAR v. STATE OF MISSOURI (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 871 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nigro v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Further, “[i]n many instances, seasoned trial counsel do not object to otherwise improper questions or arguments for strategic purposes.” Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866, 871 (Mo.App.E.D.2105) (citation omitted).
cited Cited "see" Downer v. Norman
E.D. Mo. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bracken v. State, 453 S.W.3d 866 at 875 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Devin MOSLEY, Movant/Appellant
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
No. ED 100915.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Feb 3, 2015.
453 S.W.3d 866
2015 WL 428065
Rosalind Koch, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for Movant/Appellant., Richard A. Starnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Respondent/Respondent.
Hess, Hoff, Sullivan.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Devin Mosley appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, following an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15.[1] We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2013, unless otherwise indicated.